“They have defended people almost no one else would because there position was if free speech doesn’t protect unpopular speech, it is not really free,” Carlson said. The ACLU recently represented the white supremacist who organized the rally in Charlottesville, after the city council attempted to modify his permit to protest just a week prior to the event.

Nanos’ position was that the ACLU has the right to defend who they want.

“First of all, the ACLU is a private organization, it has limited resources and its not going to take on nor does it have to take on every client in the world,” she said. “And it’s made a decision that these extremist, white supremacist hate group are not worth its limited resources. There is a change there but the change is not about First Amendment law.”

She also pointed out as per the Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Constitution does not protect inflammatory speech directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action or violence.

“In many of the cases with these White Supremacist group, you look at their mission statements and you will see that their underlying mission basically is genocide,” Nanos said.

Carlson concluded by projecting that “we are moving very quickly to banning speech.”